ULTRAMONTANISM.
Definition and Use of the Term (§ 1).
Early Foundations (§ 2).
Results Outside and Inside the Church (§ 3). Effects on Research and Theology (§ 4). Effects upon the People (§ 5).
A noteworthy definition of Ultramontanism by F. X. Kraus (q.v.) runs as follows: ‘‘ The distinctive marks of the ultramontane system
1. Defini- are comprised in five points: (1) he is
tion and an ultramontanist who sets the con-
Use of the cept of the Church above that of re- Term. ligion; (2) who conceives pope and Church interchangeably; (3) who believes the kingdom of God is of this world, and that the power of the keys, as curialism affirmed it in the Middle Ages, also includes temporal jurisdiction over princes and peoples; (4) who supposes that religious conviction can be coerced through material power, or who may be reduced to submission by such process; (5) who finds himself always ready to sacrifice a clear command of his own conscience to the claim of an alien authority ” (by F. X. Kraus, reproduced in E. Hauviller’s biography of Kraus, p. 100, Colmar, 1904). The term Ultramontani, at Italian seats of learning during the later Middle Ages, was a term applied to students ‘‘ from over the mountains,” e.g., to Germans. And the same designation was used.in Rome of the French cardinals, when sharp opposition had developed in connection with the election of Clement V. But the same expression was current in Germany during the time of Henry IV. with reference to the followers of Gregory VII. because they served interests ‘‘ beyond the mountains’; while in France the name occurs with reference to those with curial, not Gallican, aims. In the nineteenth century, the name became quite prevalent, at first in Munich as applied to the party of the elder Gérres; afterward in North Germany on occasion of the church strife at Cologne. The controversial question is inevitable, whether the ultramontanists give the adequate expression to the essence of Roman Catholicism which they profess to do. This question can be clearly resolved only through detailed historical examination.
A preliminary question arises as to how far into the past Ultramontanism may be carried. As early as at the Council of Trent (q.v.) some genuine ultramontane aims were set up in the form of papal
assumptions; and if Ultramontanism
2. Early did not, as yet, carry the victory along Founda- all the line, still it achieved important tions. _ results, especially in the canons of the sixth, fourteenth, and twenty-fifth
sessions. It was not accidental that these results
were won by a Jesuit, since this is the sequel to the transformation of Roman Catholicism from what it had been down to the middle of the sixteenth century, through the genius and activity of the Jesuit order. To be sure this new ‘‘ Roman type” of Catholicism furnishes nothing absolutely new; and, on another side, even without the direct cooperation of the Jesuits, a phase of papalism was espoused about the middle of the sixteenth century which can not be distinguished from Ultramontanism as defined by Kraus. For instance, in the bull
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG |
Cum ex apostolatus officio, promulgated by Paul Ve; 1559, where “‘ out of the fulness of apostolic authority” it is stated that ‘‘ the pope, who is vice-gerent of God and of Christ on earth, and has the supreme power over kingdoms and peoples, and judges all, can be judged by»no one. . . . All hierarchs and all sovereigns and princes even to the emperor, the moment they fall into heresy or schism, are by that very fact, and without need of a particular judicial procedure, throughout and for ever forfeit of their position and its honors and revenues, also thenceforth and for ever unfit to be vested therewith ”’ ... (ef. Mirbt, Quellen, under no. 288). If this bull be combined with the bull In cena Domini (q.v.), there is a nearly integral configuration of the ultramontane papal principle. And far back of this it exists in fact in the bull Unam sanctam (q.v.) of the year 1302. What lies at loose ends in the Dictatus of Gregory VII. stands here compact, and papalism spans its highest arch on a religious foundation: “We declare all human creatures to be subject to the Roman pontiff. . . . Such is the indispensable condition of salvation.”’ In such terms Ultramontanism is set up for a ruling principle alike in regard to the pope’s political status, and in regard to the religious relationship of believing Roman Catholics toward the pope. True, J. Hergenréther, in Anti-Janus (Freiburg, 1870; cf. J. F. v. Schulte, Altkatholizismus, pp. 331 sqq., Giessen, 1887), has contended that this bull should not be regarded as infallible; and in Kirchenstaat, pp. 300 sqq., 751 sqq. (Freiburg, 1860), he has brought forward every available argument to the end of annulling its importance in respect to this question. But this was all in vain; the third of the distinctive marks of Ultramontanism enunciated by Kraus has its foundation in the bull of 1302; and thereon rests even in modern times the tendency not to separate the two jurisdictions, but to treat temporal matters constantly according to the synchronous interests of the Church.
The practical operation of the ultramontane tendency during the progress of time has been twofold, outside and inside the ecclesiastical system. On the
former side, illustration is furnished
3. Results by the conflict between empire and Outside papacy. By degrees the ultramontane and Inside idea as to the superiority of the papacy the Church. was introduced into the sphere of secular affairs, and became part of the be-
lief of the faithful, priests and laymen. So that Innocent III. could say without encountering opposition, “‘ The Lord committed not only the Church but the entire secular era to Peter’s administration.” In answer to the question whether this idea belongs exclusively to the Middle Ages or is of present application, the answer must be that it is only in exceptional cases that such assumptions can still find actual enforcement. Yet even in more modern times the popes have often declared civil laws invalid, as in the case of the Austrian statute law of 1867, and the Prussian “‘ Falk laws” or ‘ May laws”’ of 1872~75,* although those laws neither hindered
* These laws, which were carried through the Prussian diet by Dr. Falk, minister of public instruction in Prussia, transferred oversight of the schools from the Church to the State,